alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM
FORM 10Q DATED MARCH 28, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-27-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-28-1997
<CASH>                                           6,261
<SECURITIES>                                     7,806
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,610<F1>
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,456
<INVENTORY>                                      1,265
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                20,744<F2>
<PP&E>                                           1,257<F3>
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  23,255
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            9,436
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           226
<OTHER-SE>                                      13,387
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    23,255<F4>
<SALES>                                          6,477
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 6,477
<CGS>                                            2,375
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   10,496<F5>
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    36<F6>
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (4,055)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (4,055)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (4,055)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.19)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.19)
<FN>
<F1>IS NET OF ALLOWANCES
<F2>INCLUDES PREPAID AND OTHER CURRENT ASSETS OF $1,802
<F3>IS NET OF DEPRECIATION
<F4>INCLUDES $206 OF LONG TERM OBLIGATIONS
<F5>INCLUDES OPERATING EXPENSES OF $8,121
<F6>INCLUDES INTEREST INCOME, NET
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
# C_2021053EN.01001401.xml

| 15.2.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 53/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.2.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 53/14

---

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 10 December 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Vrhovno sodišče Republike Slovenije — Slovenia) — A. B., B. B. v Personal Exchange International Limited

(Case C-774/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Article 15(1) - Jurisdiction over consumer contracts - Concept of ‘consumer’ - Poker playing contract concluded online between a natural person and an organiser of games of chance - Natural person earning a living from online poker games - Knowledge of that person - Regularity of that activity)

(2021/C 53/17)

Language of the case: Slovenian

Referring court

Vrhovno sodišče Republike Slovenije

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: A. B., B. B.

Defendant: Personal Exchange International Limited

Operative part of the judgment

Article 15(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as meaning that a natural person domiciled in a Member State who, first, has concluded with a company established in another Member State a contract to play poker on the internet, containing general terms and conditions specified by that company, and, second, has neither officially declared such activity nor offered it to third parties as a paid service does not lose the status of ‘consumer’ within the meaning of that provision, even if that person plays that game for a large number of hours per day, possesses extensive knowledge and receives substantial winnings from the game.

---

(1)  OJ C 19, 20.1.2020.

---
P. 1



# OAR Box 1830
Prepped by Ollie Stewart



### Document

Number: il l 

# 226 ) IV-C- "
Docket Number: 

# A-87-1 1

Printed 11/13/20087:21:03 AM Sheet 226 of 232"*X: * ^ ; aUNITE D STATE S ENVIRONMENTA L PROTECTIO N AGENC Y : Tt 2 ^ < L ""/ ^ / P. 2



## APR1 9 198 8

Mr , Le e h* lecocc a C&eiraan , Cnrysle r Motor s 1299 9 Chrysle r Driv e Highlan d Park , M I 48288-085 7 bea r Mr . lacocca i X* « ssc e yo o er e awar e o f th s defeats surroundin g »*•* - proposa l t o reqalr e tha t al l ne v <jaeoline-powere

d vehicle s iastal l system

s that captur e vapor s tha t carrantI ? escap e int o the ataoepher e darin g refueling . On « o f th s etoe t costreversis l Issae * inth

a debat e i s to e safet y ispl lea t ions s f the* * potentia l •onboard * vehicl e systems . IPs , ne s iMie

o awar e o f to e safety isss s fo

r s loft

f tin s aa

d haa attempte

d t o atod

y i t I n a etralghtforvard , technics ! Banner « A

t tn e tia e w

e announce

d th e detail s s f os r osbosrt f proposa l (Jul

y 1*97) , v

o cede availabl e t o intereste d partie s s o SP A technica l repor t o n th e safety

of onboar

d systems * W e requeste

d coameot s onour analysi s a s wel l s s additiona l in f orsa t io

ntaa t wosl d hel p a s foll y umleretan

d thi s safet y issue * M e nav

e subsequentl y

receive

d asn y comment s fro

m aoto r vehicl e saoofaotarer s an d other s darin

g oa r poJbll

c hearin s in Octobe r 198 7 an

d mor e recentl y

i nwritten consent s sebaitte d t o th e pobll e doctst . Inligh

t o f tnea e comment s w e hav e underwa

y a serie s o f efforts . One of th e mea t aocoessfa l ha s bee na staf f projec t t o desig

nan d assembl e a prototype onboar d eyate a whichwoal d no t increas e th

e complexity

beyon d tha t o f ftts

l syetea s i

nos e o ntoday

f a car e an

d trvtctta . Tha t effor t ie no

w complete . Xhav

e seenth

e prototyp e aa

d wa s ver

y lapreste

d b y it * simplicit

y compare

d t o curren t fss l evsporativ

a contro l systeea . t?otably # tfe e prototype syats a exclaslvel y

use s curren t productio n part s wit hver y fe w aodifleetions * Test s conducte d o nth e prototype sho

w tha t it consistentl y

complie s wttf

c th e performanc e standar d w e hav e propose d fo r onfccat

d &y«te©s .P. 3

ENVIRONMENTA L PROTECTIO N

AGENC Y 

### MA Y- ^ lt/0 

### ° CENTRA L DOCKE T SECTfO N N 

### " 4P. 4

:w.*- o 

### has h l acontac twit h yea rstaf f t o o f fa rt o Jsen too rprototyp e hsrdwsre . M e ar e wav

y ipffyslot* * eommeat

s o n oa rwort * I n particular , f voal d fIfflfp ' t o encourag e yo n sa d othe rsenio rChrysle r aaaaesr s t o carsfell y evsloat e thes e ne w developments . Vmaa tyo u fo rvou rconsideratio n o f thi s matter * •lncerel y year s # te e M . Thoma a Lee Km Thoma

s Prepare d bytMi»geriAR-455»382-7647t4/13/8iiwai> g dec . 9199 9

& •
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6897

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus LAWRENCE GLEN GALLOWAY, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Newport News. Robert G. Doumar, Senior District Judge. (CR-01-117, CA-04-5-4) Submitted: September 16, 2004 Decided: September 22, 2004 Before LUTTIG, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.. Lawrence Glen Galloway, Appellant Pro Se. Lisa Rae McKeel, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Newport News, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Lawrence Glen Galloway, a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his request for a certificate of appealability in his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. SeeMiller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Galloway has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We deny Galloway’s motion to amend his informal brief because it raises an issue not presented in his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion before the district court. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
##### 



Year ended
    
    
    Year endedSeptember 30,
    
    
    September 30,2005
    
    
    2004Net earnings (loss)
    
    $
    1,243,447
    
    
    $
    (1,153,048
    )Less: Preferred stock dividends
    
    
    (111,002
    )
    
    
    (73,702
    )Earnings available to common shareholders
    
    $
    1,132,445
    
    
    $
    (1,226,750
    )Basic weighted average common shares outstanding
    
    
    21,165,584
    
    
    
    20,886,002Add: Dilutive effect of stock options
    
    
    3,764,184
    
    
    
    Diluted weighted average common shares outstanding
    
    
    24,929.768
    
    
    
    20,886,002Earnings (loss) per share:Basic
    
    $
    0.06
    
    
    $
    (0.06
    )Diluted
    
    $
    0.05
    
    
    $
    (0.06
    )
# C_2018352EN.01004402.xml

| 1.10.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 352/44 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.10.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 352/44

---

Action brought on 17 August 2018 — Dermatest v EUIPO (DERMATEST)

(Case T-495/18)

(2018/C 352/54)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Dermatest Gesellschaft für allergologische Forschung u. Vertrieb von Körperpflegemitteln mbH (Münster, Germany) (represented by: J. Bühling and D. Graetsch, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘DERMATEST’ — Application for registration No 17 542 986

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 June 2018 in Case R 426/2018-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs, including those incurred in the proceedings before the Board of Appeal. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs, including those incurred in the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
**IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS**

No. 10-0077

IN RE  PROGRESSIVE COUNTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus

**ORDERED:**

1.Relator’s emergency motion for temporary relief, filed February 1, 2010, is granted in part.   The order granting defendants Michella and William Young’s motion to compel, dated January 14, 2010, in Cause No. DC-08-01133, styled *Progressive County Mutual Insurance Co. v. Steven Anderson, et al.*, in the 191st District Court of Dallas County, Texas, is stayed pending further order of this Court.

2.The real parties in interest are requested to respond to relator’s petition for writ of mandamus on or before February 16, 2010.

3.The petition for writ of mandamus remains pending before this Court.

Done at the City of Austin, this February 05, 2010.

Blake A. Hawthorne, Clerk

Supreme Court of Texas

By Jessica Hamby, Deputy Clerk
# C_2020329EN.01000903.xml

| 5.10.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 329/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.10.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 329/9

---

Order of the President of the Court of 26 June 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Törvényszék (formerly Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság) — Hungary) — TN v Országos Idegenrendészeti Főigazgatóság, formerly Bevándorlási és Menekültügyi Hivatal

(Case C-210/19) (1)

(2020/C 329/14)

Language of the case: Hungarian

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 182, 27.5.2019.

---
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Norman Nance, Appellant.

— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County (Herold, J.), rendered June 16, 1988, convicting him of attempted murder in the second degree, assault in the first degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in trying the defendant in absentia. The record reveals that the defendant was twice informed of his right to be present at trial as well as the consequences of failing to appear for trial *(see, People v Parker,*57 NY2d 136, 140). On the day the trial was to begin the defendant appeared in court but shortly thereafter absconded. Reasonable efforts to locate him proved unsuccessful. We find that under the circumstances, the defendant waived his right to be present at his criminal trial *(see, People v Parker, supra),*and, in any event, forfeited that right by absconding shortly before the beginning of trial *(see, People v Sanchez,*65 NY2d 436, 444; *People v Carbonaro,*151 AJ)2d 593).

The defendant contends that his conviction of attempted murder in the second degree cannot stand because the evidence adduced at trial was insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he intended to cause the victim’s death. At trial, the victim testified that as he was walking down the street, the defendant, whom the victim had known for three to four years, suddenly appeared from behind a parked mini van, said "hello”, and shot him in the left eye. As the victim turned and was running away, the defendant continued to fire at the victim, hitting him once in the upper shoulder and once in the lower back. Another eyewitness testified to the occurrence of these events. The defendant’s intent to cause death is *186manifest by his act of repeatedly shooting the victim at close range *(see, People v Santiago,*140 AD2d 468; *People v Ward,*119 AD2d 840; *People v Milea,*112 AD2d 1011). Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution *(see, People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Furthermore, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence *(see,*CPL 470.15 [5]).

We have reviewed the defendant’s remaining contention and find it to be without merit *(see, People v Rivera,*71 NY2d 705; *People v Baldi,*54 NY2d 137). Mangano, P. J., Lawrence, Fiber and Balletta, JJ., concur.
# C_2018112EN.01004701.xml

| 26.3.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 112/47 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.3.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 112/47

---

Action brought on 6 February 2018 — Visi/one v EUIPO — EasyFix (Information displays for vehicles)

(Case T-74/18)

(2018/C 112/59)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Visi/one GmbH (Remscheid, Germany) (represented by: H. Bourree and M. Bartz, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: EasyFix GmbH (Vienna, Austria)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the design at issue: Applicant

Proprietor of the design at issue:

Design at issue: Community design No 1391114-0001

Design at issue:

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 December 2017 in Case R 1424/2016-3

Contested decision

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order the intervener to pay the costs, including those incurred in the course of the appeals procedure. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the intervener to pay the costs, including those incurred in the course of the appeals procedure.

Pleas in law

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of the second sentence of Article 62 of Regulation No 6/2002; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of the second sentence of Article 62 of Regulation No 6/2002;

| — | Infringement of the first sentence of Article 62 of Regulation No 6/2002; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of the first sentence of Article 62 of Regulation No 6/2002;

| — | Infringement of Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation No 6/2002. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation No 6/2002.

---
EXHIBIT 23(a)

CONSENT OF CROWE CHIZEK AND COMPANY LLC

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Form S-8 Registration Statement No. 33-30582 of First Federal
Financial Corporation of Kentucky of our report dated January 16, 2004 on the consolidated financial statements of First Federal Financial Corporation of Kentucky as of December 31, 2003
and 2002, and June 30, 2002 and for the year ended December 31, 2003, the six-month period ended December 31, 2002 and each of the two years in the period ending
June 30, 2002 as included in the registrant's annual report on Form 10-K.

Crowe
Chizek and Company LLC

Louisville,
Kentucky
March 12, 2004

---

QuickLinks
# C_2018190EN.01003601.xml

| 4.6.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 190/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.6.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 190/36

---

Action brought on 29 March 2018 — Deutsche Lufthansa v Commission

(Case T-218/18)

(2018/C 190/60)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Deutsche Lufthansa AG (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: A. Martin-Ehlers, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the European Commission of 31 July 2017 in Case SA.47969, C(2017)5289 — Hahn Airport; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the European Commission of 31 July 2017 in Case SA.47969, C(2017)5289 — Hahn Airport;

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant alleges, in essence, the following:

| — | procedural errors, as the defendant made a ‘deal’ with the Federal Republic of Germany with regard to the assessment of the aid granted to Flughafen Frankfurt-Hahn GmbH (‘FFHG’) and Ryanair; |
| --- | --- |

—

procedural errors, as the defendant made a ‘deal’ with the Federal Republic of Germany with regard to the assessment of the aid granted to Flughafen Frankfurt-Hahn GmbH (‘FFHG’) and Ryanair;

| — | failure to take into account certain essential factual elements, despite the fact that the defendant was fully aware of these at the time when the contested decision was adopted; |
| --- | --- |

—

failure to take into account certain essential factual elements, despite the fact that the defendant was fully aware of these at the time when the contested decision was adopted;

| — | partially incorrect representation of the facts of the case; |
| --- | --- |

—

partially incorrect representation of the facts of the case;

| — | failure to take into account other aid in favour of FFHG that was ultimately passed on to Ryanair as the principal user of the airport. |
| --- | --- |

—

failure to take into account other aid in favour of FFHG that was ultimately passed on to Ryanair as the principal user of the airport.

---
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 719 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

114th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 719

Expressing support for designation of May 2016 as ``Health and Fitness 
                                Month''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 10, 2016

Mr. Veasey (for himself, Mr. Peters, Ms. Norton, Mr. Rangel, Ms. Clarke 
 of New York, and Mr. Payne) submitted the following resolution; which 
          was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
Expressing support for designation of May 2016 as ``Health and Fitness 
                                Month''.

Whereas \2/3\ of adults and nearly 1 in 3 children are overweight or obese in 
        the United States;
Whereas unhealthy eating habits and lack of physical activity have contributed 
        to the obesity epidemic in the United States;
Whereas the prevalence of obesity in the United States more than doubled from 15 
        percent to 34 percent among adults and more than tripled from 5 percent 
        to 17 percent among children and adolescents from 1980 to 2008;
Whereas an obese teenager is 70 percent more likely to become an obese adult;
Whereas obesity is more common among non-Hispanic Black teenagers (29 percent) 
        than Hispanic teenagers (17.5 percent) or non-Hispanic White teenagers 
        (14.5 percent);
Whereas 70 percent of American Indian/Alaskan Native adults are overweight or 
        obese;
Whereas studies indicate that overweight youth may never achieve a healthy 
        weight;
Whereas a poor diet is associated with major health risks that can cause illness 
        and even death;
Whereas in addition to healthy eating, people in the United States can 
        experience positive health benefits and be on the path for a better 
        future by incorporating physical activity into daily life, including 30 
        minutes for adults and 60 minutes for children;
Whereas physical activity can help prevent chronic diseases such as heart 
        disease, cancer, and stroke, control weight, reduce fat, condition the 
        heart and lungs, improve sleep, decrease potential of becoming 
        depressed, increase energy and self-esteem, relieve stress, and increase 
        the chances of living longer; and
Whereas May 2016 would be an appropriate month to designate as ``Health and 
        Fitness Month'': Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
            (1) supports the designation of ``Health and Fitness 
        Month''; and
            (2) support efforts to educate the people of the United 
        States on the importance of a healthy and nutritious lifestyle.
                                 <all>
```